UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2110
MUHAMMAD NABEEL,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 6, 2014 Decided: March 11, 2014
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Genet Getachew, Brooklyn, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F.
Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Carl McIntyre, Assistant
Director, Sharon M. Clay, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Nabeel, a citizen of Pakistan, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”)
dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his
requests for asylum, withholding of removal and withholding
under the Convention Against Torture. We have thoroughly
reviewed the record, including the transcript of Nabeel’s merits
hearing, his written statement and his documentary evidence. We
conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling
contrary to the Board’s dismissal and that substantial evidence
supports the factual findings. * See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B)
(2012); INS v. Elias–Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
*
We note that Nabeel does not challenge the denial of his
application for asylum or the finding that he did not suffer
past persecution. Thus, those issues are waived. Wahi v.
Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.
2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the
brief in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(9)(A));
Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir.
2004) (noting that appellate assertions not supported by
argument are deemed abandoned).
2